And what might be said about the energy we use to live? That which does all the computations and organismal procedures used to sustain us for a minute of experience. Can we say that that specific quantity of energy is used for self determination and agency? — Benj96
we cannot deny that the positioning of molecules in a specific way that confers sentient life is not a process carried out by energy. — Benj96
I understand the sentimental value you attach to memory. Memory is a very important part of consciousness. But memory and consciousness are not interchangeable. Amnesia is one condition which allows a human being to be conscious but lacking memory. In another thread some time ago, I mentioned that there are perceptions we experience that are not temporal.I disagree. Consciousness requires storage - namely memory. Without memory, our sense of self, of place, of time, of coherent chronology, breaks down. As one with dementia experiences as their brains architecture breaks down due to disease.
If we had no memory (storage), we would not be able to revisit mentally the past, and thus contextually would not be aware that the present moment is indeed the present because we cannot retrieve anything beyond it historically. And lastly we could not anticipate a future because we don't have a past, nor present. So why expect a future? — Benj96
There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno
Is such work 'physics without maths', or is it speculative fiction... — Tom Storm
What is that?Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact). — ucarr
What is that?
It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld. — Banno
That comment is an ad hominem, which -- as you well know -- should have no place in a philosophy dialog. It's also a Straw Man fallacy, which attacks a soft target, instead of addressing the hard question of the role of Mind in a material world. It may also be a Red Herring fallacy, to distract a discussion from focusing on the "real issue". Which, to paraphrase the topic of this thread is : "what does it feel like to be energy".There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno
As ↪Benj96 worded the issue : "So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does". — Gnomon
That comment is an ad hominem — Gnomon
...how does it relate to my post? — Banno
Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. — ucarr
↪ucarr Looks like gobbledegook dressed in formal clothing. — Banno
I'm sorry, I still can't make sense of this. I see that you are using curls to mark sets, and it seems you are using "f" for both a non-specific function and something else... the set of facts? Is "t" a transcendent fact? I cannpt see what system you are using here for the formalisation. — Banno
No. It's simply a Chicken or Egg conundrum for us to argue about. It's stated as a dichotomy, but that's simply to simplify the premises. Either/Or questions are like Ockham's Razor. However, if you can think of a third or fourth source of consciousness, we can add those options to the discussion, at the risk of obfuscation.On the topic of fallacies, that is a false dichotomy. Is it energy, or the matter from which your car is constructed, that enables your car to take you to the grocery store? — wonderer1
And what you cite from Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma. — Banno
No, you are merely missing the philosophical point . . . . again! :sad:You aren't being consistent. You start by recognizing a distinction between matter and energy, and when shown that you have posed a false dichotomy, you deny the distinction. — wonderer1
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one. — Gnomon
As it is possible to see from the discussion above, information is not physical by itself but has a physical representation and, naturally, this physical representation complies with physical laws. This is in good agreement with what Landauer actually wrote and not with his more far-reaching claims. Thus, the physical properties that Landauer and other researchers conjectured, ascribing them to information [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], are actually the properties of the physical representation of information. — url=https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/11/540
Yes, t = transcendent fact. There's also set {f} because, through labyrinthine logic (I think), transcendence is modular to everything else, even its own attributes. Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions. — ucarr
No, it doesn't. Not unless you're a materialist :rage: — Wayfarer
And yet Interference happens. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.